Once again President Trump is being called a radical, when he is, in fact, restoring common sense to government policy. As Forbes reports, Trump’s recent seven-page executive order “lays the groundwork for rescinding” Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is currently “suspended by the Supreme Court while a Washington appeals court considers its fate.” While Obama was known for his executive overreach (he lost in the Supreme Court more than any other president, including a record number of unanimous defeats), Trump is scaling back government interference in the marketplace that had been justified in the name of battling climate change.

“And so what President Trump did was he instructed the EPA to begin the process, through the regulatory process, of undoing something that should have been done through the legislature but wasn’t,” argues Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner in a recent radio appearance. “This is the meta issue for the left,” he added. “It gives them what they have been demanding in the name of so many things, in the name of saving the planet.”

As Horner remarked in a 2010 Accuracy in Media Take AIM interview discussing his book, Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, climate change is “the latest vehicle to organize society.”

“The left’s objective never changes, that is to ‘organize society’ in that creepy Orwellian rhetoric they’ve mastered,” he said. The threat of climate change, thus, is used to rationalize central planning.

Far-left activist Michael Moore tweeted in response to Trump’s executive order that “Historians in the near future will mark today…as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump.” The reception from The New York Times carries similar vitriol; an editorial describes Trump as “anti-science” and “strip[ping] America of its hard-won role as a global leader on climate issues.” This position as global leader was, of course, earned by former President Obama. The editorial is titled, “President Trump Risks the Planet.”

The media are overwhelmingly convinced of climate change’s veracity—or at least they claim to be—often abandoning objectivity in their reporting in order to defend climate science. The Washington Post defended the Democrats’ choice to testify before the House Science Committee last month, climatologist Michael Mann, as “clear and articulate but outnumbered by foes.” In contrast, the Post reports that at the hearing “political theater upstaged almost all productive discussion of science.”

The media have been complicit with radical climatologists such as Mann, calling anyone who opposes the climate change agenda a “skeptic,” a “denier,”—or worse. And it has become popular to compare energy companies to big tobacco, or hype that each year was warmer than the last. This is shaky science, at best.

“The warming trend is over,” said Horner in 2010. “It could resume, but it’s turned to cooling and is predicted to be cooling for several decades now.”

Horner’s comments hold true today. As Marc Morano points out on his Climate Depot website, satellite data indicates that we are in a temperature pause. “The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science,” he writes. Other scientists point out that there is little statistical difference between the allegedly warmest years and other years: Morano quotes Dr. David Whitehouse as calling 2016 temperatures “statistically indistinguishable from 2015.” Claims that we are experiencing the hottest years on record are blatantly bogus, and rely on statistically insignificant temperature changes.

Obama’s own appointed undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy for the first two years of his administration, Steven E. Koonin, said that “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science.”

ClimateDepot.com is an indispensable website that keeps track of all relevant global warming news, and provides both sides of the debate. One very useful service it provides is the names and quotes from environmentalists, including former “warmists”—global warming believers—such as physicist Freeman Dyson: “An Obama supporter who describes himself as ‘100 per cent Democrat,’ Dyson says he is disappointed that the President ‘chose the wrong side.’ Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, ‘is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?’”

Then there is Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: “Global warming is a non-problem,” he argues. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” He says that “Global warming really has become a new religion,” and that “We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.”

Even if the Trump administration kept Obama’s commitments to climate change policy, such measures would have been unlikely to affect global temperatures. Yet the media lauded Obama as keeping the world safe from climate change.

“Addressing climate change has been a core goal for the president and netting the Paris climate deal is considered a critical part of his environmental policy legacy,” reported NBC News and Reuters in 2016, in a piece titled, “Obama: Paris Climate Accord Best Possible Shot to ‘Save’ Planet.” This is nonsense. It was just another phony Obama legacy item to check off his list that in reality is far more about the U.S. and other developed nations transferring $100 billion per year to developing countries that make no binding commitments. In addition, it would transfer significant regulatory powers to the UN and other international bodies, none of which would amount to anything measurable or provable in terms of tweaking the global temperature to reach some desired environmental utopian goal.

According to Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), “The Paris agreement also created a United Nations climate slush fund, largely underwritten by American taxpayers. In his final year in office, President Obama contributed $500 million from the State Department to this fund on two separate occasions. He did it without authorization from Congress.”

Also, adds Barrasso, “According to National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting, if the United States met all of its commitments as part of the Paris climate accord, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040.”

Obama designed his climate agenda in a way that touched each facet of the bureaucracy. “There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did,” writes Christopher Flavelle for Bloomberg. “The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration.” Obama, Flavelle writes, tried to make “climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.” To that end, an estimated $77 billion was spent from 2008 through 2013, spread over 18 federal agencies.

With this recent executive order, Trump is dismantling another of Obama’s key legacy items, a policy that the media desire to protect from the new Republican president. As with Obamacare and the unsigned Iran deal, the test will be to see whether Trump continues Obama’s disastrous policies or undercuts them. But you can expect that the media will fight every effort to roll back Obama’s legacy.

Comments

If one wishes to commit a fraud, the first thing to do is to conceal it. If the climate fraud were on the up and up, they would not go to great lengths to hide the mechanisms implementing it.

gillardgone

President Trump seems to be our best bet for returning the world to sanity on the global warming scam, you can now see why the leftist zealots don’t like him.

Mary Grace Shabazz-Epstein

0bama is a muslim and was born in Kenya. As a terrorist and an illegal immigrant, he could always be counted on to do whatever is worst for America. It is going to be a big job for President Trump to untangle this socialist mess.

The reason why the phrases “Anti-science”, “Evidence-deniers”, and ”Global Warming Deniers” are used is that the “Anti-science Deniers” ignore demonstrable evidence, and fabricate stories and “facts” that are not true.
.
The claim
“The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years”
is absurd and illustrates the mindless parroting of denier falsehoods.
.
Temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases, the Berkeley Earth Temperature Results, the UAH and RSS satellite interpretations, and Radiosondes (Weather Balloons) are all setting new warmth records.
.
For example
.
Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/UAHanomalies.png
Data source: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (“Globe” column)
Alternate Data Source: “UAH: Lower troposphere”http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview

Richard Frick

The doomsayers need to bring Al “the sky is falling” Gore before an investigation panel and find out exactly what his credentials are to make him an expert on climate change as well as inventing the internet. He is a wax job and hypocrite for his defiance to his own agenda.

Your graph confirms the claim that there was no warming over the last 18 years. But it also shows the slight warming (0.5 degrees/century) that has occurred since the little ice age ended about 150 years ago.

Ross McLeod

If greenhouse gases “trap” infra-red radiation, then why does NASA data from the Nimbus program show a positive anomaly for most of the period from 1979 to 2005, the year that marked the end of the Nimbus era ?

Surely GHG “heat trapping” is only true if LESS IR is emitted to space NOT MORE ???

1. The peak emission only coincides with the absorption band of CO2 because the authors chose to use a wavenumber plot which shows peak emissions coinciding with the CO2 absorption bandwidths.

Peak emissions on a wavelength plot are displaced to near 9.7 microns and the CO2 absorption bandwidth is at the fringe on this plot.

Hence any statement about the CO2 absorption bandwidths coinciding with the peak emissions from Earth is misleading. It is equally valid to say CO2’s absorption band is on the fringe in terms of wavelength and hence insignificant;and,

2. If CO2 is absorbing the infrared from the surface at the wavenumbers shown – 600 to 800 – it certainly is not heating the surface as the emission temperatures detected by the satellite are equivalent to a temperature of ~minus 50°C.

Besides all of that a scientist named Pictet demonstrated irrefutably that “heat” does not transfer from a cold object (such as GHGs in the atmosphere) to a warmer object (such as the Earth’s surfaces) more than 2 centuries ago ! This well established fact has never been refuted !

The supposed mechanism of GHG IR absorption heating the warmer surfaces is only imaginary !

The other supposed mechanism of reducing the cooling rate of Earth’s surfaces by “heat trapping” is shown by the Nimbus mission graphs to be only imaginary as well !

cwon1

Still no announcement on withdrawal from the Paris sham. The entire UN climate structure needs to be eliminated.

We need a focus on junk science for political purposes and it must be curtailed.

Carbon dioxide is transparent to incoming solar radiation. (Solar radiation is mostly in the visible, short wavelength part of the electromagnetic spectrum.)

However, carbon dioxide absorbs and retransmits some of the outgoing heat (long wavelength) radiation. Half of the retransmitted energy goes up while the other half is radiated back down again.

If the earth had no carbon dioxide, then there would be nothing to retard this outgoing radiation, and the earth’s average surface temperature would fall to at least zero F.

The preindustrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide slowed this outgoing radiation which in turn raised the earth’s surface temperature above 32 F. The resultant liquid water on the earth’s surface has allowed life to progress to produce humans.

If you increase the earth’s carbon dioxide content, an increased proportion of what should be radiated out into space is instead reradiated back down toward the earth’s surface – thus warming it.

Fortunately, carbon dioxide’s contribution is a logarithmic function. The bad news is that there are feedback and amplification factors. Water vapor is the “elephant in the room”, and as the oceans warm in the future, this feedback function is nearly exponential. The human population will survive the first CO2 doubling although southern Florida is already committed to becoming fish-food over the next couple of hundred years.

A second doubling (or worse) of carbon dioxide would be really bad news.

BernardP

But despite the hoopla, the EPA’s Climate Change web site is still disseminating the same biased information as under the previous administration.

Snopes and Wikipedia are known to be far-left biased. Obama’s foreign birth is the truth; the fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it a conspiracy theory.

Paul Anderson

The United Nations and it’s Global Warming Agenda, is intended to destroy Capitalism. The presence of Capitalism, hinders the establishment of Global Communism. The push for Global Communism began with Lennon.

John Swallow

How can anyone be so irrational to believe that a trace gas, CO2, that is one & one half times heavier than than the rest of the atmosphere, will cause the planet’s climate to do anything? It is obvious that person has no idea that this trace gas that is now at 400 ppm has little to do with the planet warming up. It is, as most intelligent folks know, H2O that is over 95 % responsible for the earth holding the sun’s heat. This poor fool who believes that 400 ppm of CO2 can do this has no idea of what that actually is in the world they know nothing about. It is like 400 inches in the number of inches in 16 Miles of inches. It is 400 minutes in the number of mins in two years worth of mins. This above is why there has NEVER been an experiment done that shows that CO2 does what Bill Butler wants us to believe that by its physical qualities it is impossible to do.

How about the Roman Warm Period or the MWP and the LIA that are all historically recognized vents?

John Swallow

Very true Ross. No one can actually name anything that they can actually “trap” with any gas.

Bob

Ear marking federal money to federal agencies who then comply with some sort of “green” policy. They in turn get bonuses or raises with the additional “I’ll vote for you or another democrat that gives me more money” was the order of the day with Obama. Additionally these agencies were authorized grant givers to climate science and green energy sector jobs programs. They in turn would promise donations to Obama or the democrat party for more tax payer money. It’s the biggest scam for political gain in the history of the U.S. Dismantling this albatross of federal funded political action is well over due. Go after the money President Trump, that is where you will defeat them for good!

cwon1

The meeting among the WH staff is next week and Tillerson and Kushner are for staying in Paris.

It’s of the utmost importance that Paris be eliminated and rational science (requiring proof) be restored to the US and the world. We will slide to the full Soviet system if we don’t.

Gz7

Fall for it if you want to. Do you also have an explanation for Zero’s SSN that was issued in Connecticut, a place he never lived?

steve mcdonald

He is a Muslim sympathizer who doesn’t care much for democracy.
Democracy ties down his megalomaniac mind.

hikertom

Trump is such an embarrassment to this country. Beginning January 2021 we need to reverse all his policies and move in the opposite direction.

Will Haas

Climate change is real and has been going on for eons, long before Mankind started to burn fossil fuels. Based on modeling studies one can conclude that the climate change wer are experiencing tocay is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer examination it is severely flawed. In part to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of different models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. If there were no guess work then only one model would have been supported. The plethora of models have generated a wide range of predictions for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all prediicted global warming that never happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture is flawed. The climate simulations actually beg the question because it is hard coded in that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming so that is what the simulation results show. Because they beg the question such sumulations are totally useless. If the IPCC actually learned something from the simulations they would have by now reduced the number of different models under consideration but that has not happened. Others have generated models that show that climate is correlated to solar and ocean effects and not to CO2.

There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water holds less CO2 then cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additinal CO2 adds to warming. It is all just speculation.

The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided by gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect..So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the atmophere keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would other wise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and it accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

Kyoji Kimoto, reporting in an artiicle entitled “Basic Global Working Hypothesis is Wrong” has found that the original calculation of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because original calculations forgot to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 wiill cause a small but very signiificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck Climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, CO2 provides a Plankc climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is rather trivial.

If CO2 really affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the last 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has found nothing the would narrow their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC deliberately ignore’s all logic indicating that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than their published range for fear of losing their funding. Supporting the AGW conjecture has been a matter of politics and not science. Belief in the AGW conjecture is really anti science.

John Wirts

Lets first examine HIS CARBON FOOTPRINT! With private planes, multiple SUV’s, a huge mansion and all the tappings of wealth. This hypocrite needs to be taken down.

January 2025?
That assumes the Democrats will have figured out why they are so hated. Which I doubt will happen.

Dr Norman Page

Trump and Pruit have the science right .Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the
2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will
likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about
2650.See the Energy and Environment paper athttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488

This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate
science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting
paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances
and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.
It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good
understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current
phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities.
Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural
60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed
emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data
related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22
low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as
a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak
-inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The
cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general
temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of
the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real
climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts
of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts
and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make
the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC
forecasts untenable.”

John Wilder

Bill, you are a pseudo intellectual. Google the specific gravity of CO2. It will lead you to numerous scientific
sites all stating that it is 1.52 or in other words 152% heavier than air. IT DOES NOT RISE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE UNLESS WE REPEAL THE LAW OF GRAVITY. This fact is not debatable. This is why
they use CO2 in fire extinguishers, precisely because it sinks to the ground and smothers the fire from O2.
It is also the reason that movie producers use it to make spooky ground fog in horror movies, because IT DOES NOT RISE.

If we reduced CO2 we would reduce the amount of O2 in the air by the same amount. I don’t want any
less O2 in my air. Newton’s Third law of physics, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Trees suck up CO2 and spit out equal amounts of O2 in basic photosynthesis.

Ask yourself a question. It is not deniable that we literally put hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of CO2 into the air every year for the last 50 years. How then is it possible that we only have 380 PPM in the air? Do you know what the fractional
equivalent of 380 PPM is? It is 38/100,000ths of 1% No way is that going to cause any problems because it is what is called in science a TRACE AMOUNT! You are entitled to your feelings but not your own facts

Mary Grace Shabazz-Epstein

Snopes and Wikipedia are bona fide liberal media outlets. For any topic that is political in nature, they are fake news.